ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Applying Order 26 r.1(1) and r.4(2) the court held that interrogatories which are shown to be relevant and necessary to save costs or to fairly dispose of the action and which cannot be adequately answered by available witnesses or documents must be ordered; accordingly interrogatories 1–4 and 6–8 were ordered answered and interrogatory 5 was disallowed, with a 28‑day time limit and costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Citation
ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Esquire (Electronics) Limited; Plaintiff: Magic Score Limited; 1st Defendant: The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited; 2nd Defendant: Wayfoong Property Limited (formerly HS Property Management Limited)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 September 2003
Case Number
HCA11077/1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial (banking) / Interlocutory Application on Interrogatories Prior to Trial (case Management)
Outcome
Interlocutory application allowed in part: plaintiffs' interrogatories 1–4 and 6–8 ordered answered; interrogatory 5 disallowed; answers to be served within 28 days; costs nisi awarded in favour of plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discovery, Fiduciary Duty, Undue Influence, Duress, Private Sale of Mortgaged Property, Overcharge Dispute
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Banking Law Equity Interrogatories Discovery Fiduciary Duty Undue Influence Duress +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esquire (Electronics) Limited

Plaintiff

Magic Score Limited

Plaintiff

The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

1st Defendant

Wayfoong Property Limited (formerly HS Property Management Limited)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial (banking) / Interlocutory Application on Interrogatories Prior to Trial (case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a $30 million overcharge occurred
  2. 2 Whether the Bank knew or had reason to know of the overcharge
  3. 3 Circumstances and motivation for sale of the mortgaged building

Ratio Decidendi

Applying Order 26 r.1(1) and r.4(2) the court held that interrogatories which are shown to be relevant and necessary to save costs or to fairly dispose of the action and which cannot be adequately answered by available witnesses or documents must be ordered; accordingly interrogatories 1–4 and 6–8 were ordered answered and interrogatory 5 was disallowed, with a 28‑day time limit and costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application allowed in part: plaintiffs' interrogatories 1–4 and 6–8 ordered answered; interrogatory 5 disallowed; answers to be served within 28 days; costs nisi awarded in favour of plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Bank to answer Interrogatories 1,2,3,4,6,7 and 8 within 28 days
  • Interrogatory 5 disallowed